Appeal No. 95-4812
Application No. 08/170,839
alkylolamide compounds in an amount of 0.5% to 13% by weight,
based on the total weight of the composition; and
(4) a polishing agent of the non-silica type in an amount
of 5% to 50% by weight, based on the total weight of the
composition.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner are:
Stone et al. (Stone) 3,472,840 Oct. 14, 1969
Gallopo et al. (Gallopo) 5,176,901 Jan. 5,
1993
“The Pharmacy Act and the Drug Control Act with Related
Statutes” (The Pharmacy Act), Commonwealth of Virginia,
Department of Health Professions, Virginia Board of Pharmacy,
chapter 34, Article I, General Provisions § 54.1-3401:
Definitions, published July 1, 1993.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Gallopo in view of Stone. We cannot
sustain the stated rejection. Essentially for the reasons set
forth in appellants’ briefs, we agree with appellants that the
combined teachings in the relied upon references are
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
for the subject matter defined by the appealed claims. We add
the following comments for emphasis.
According to the examiner, the critical ingredient of
appellants’ toothpaste composition, i.e., the claimed
cationically-modified hydroxyethycellulose thickening agent
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007